MASRI V CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS INTERNATIONAL CO SAL

[2007] EWHC 3010 (Comm), Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Gloster, 20 December 2007

Conflict of laws – Claimant obtaining judgment in England – Judgment not honoured – Whether English court had jurisdiction to grant worldwide freezing injnuction against foreign assets – Whether injunction should be granted – Whether English court had jurisdiction to appoint receiver – Whether receiver should be appointed – Supreme Court Act 1981, section 39 – CPR Parts 25 and 69

In earlier proceedings judgment was given in favour of M against the defendants on both liability and quantum for breach of contract. The defendants failed to make payment as required by the court’s order. M applied to the court for a freezing order against one of the defendants, a Lebanese company, preventing it from assigning its rights in an oil concession in Yemem. Gloster J held as follows. (1) The English court had jurisdiction to make a worldwide freezing order in support of substantive English proceedings and in respect of foreign assets under section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and CPR Part 25.1: there was no need to rely on section 25 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, or the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997, as they were relevant only where the substantive proceedings were not themselves in England. The position was the same whether jurisdiction in respect of the main proceedings was obtained under the CPR or under the Brussels Regulation, Council Regulation 44/2001. (2) No distinction was to be drawn between pre- and post-judgment orders. (2) A distinction was to be drawn between freezing injunctions and third party debt orders: there is no jurisdiction to make a third party debt order in respect of a foreign debt, as such an order was one in rem. (3) There was no need for a fresh application for service abroad: if the English court had granted permission for service abroad with respect to the main proceedings, no further permission was required with respect to an application for a freezing injunction. (4) On the facts of the case there was a risk of dissipation, and a freezing injunction should be made. (5) The injunction should be extended to the defendant’s individual directors. (6) The application for the appointment of a receiver in respect of foreign revenues would be granted – the English court had jurisdiction to make the order under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and CPR Part 69 because the remedy was in personam.